P PUSHPALATHA Vs. P MANOHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri M.N. Narasimha Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the appellant. The matter is coming up for admission today. The appellant/complainant preferred this appeal as against an order of acquittal made by the First Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kadapa in C.C. No.91 of 2003 dated 28-6-2004.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the first respondent/accused No.1 filed a suit against the appellant/complainant for permanent injunction, wherein respondent No.2/A2 figured as a witness on behalf of A.1 in O.S.No.704 of 2001 on the file of the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa. It is also the version of the prosecution that on 6-2-2003, the trial had commenced and A.1 filed an affidavit duly attested through his advocate. The said affidavit had been filed in view of the amended provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. Both A.1 and A.2 filed their affidavits by way of chief-examination. The case of the prosecution is that these affidavits filed by way of chief-examination contain certain allegations lowering the status of the appellant/ complainant in the society and had affected her reputation in the society. It is the specific case of the prosecution that these allegations are irrelevant for the purpose of the civil proceedings and the allegations are "quarrelsome nature and she wants to hoodwink other for collecting rowdy mamools. I do not like to have any physical quarrel with defendant since she is the lady and that she may misuse any kind of protest in a form of criminal case." It is further stated that A.2 also specified in the affidavit that "the defendant is of the quarrelsome nature, riff-raff and wagabond because of her unsocial activities, she was deserted by her husband". The evidence of PW. 1 was recorded and Exs.P. 1 and P.2 were marked. Likewise, the evidence of DWs.1 and 2 was also recorded and the learned Magistrate after recording reasons came to the conclusion that the respondents/accused Nos.l and 2 are entitled for acquittal. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.

(3.) Sri M.N. Narasimha Reddy, learned Counsel representing the appellant would contend that the view expressed by the learned Magistrate that inasmuch as the suit is pending disposal, the complaint cannot be entertained at this stage, definitely is unsustainable. Learned Counsel also would contend that these allegations are totally irrelevant either in the context of the civil proceedings or even otherwise, and hence, per se the allegations made in these affidavits are defamatory attracting the ingredients of Section 499 I.P.C. and accordingly liable to be punished under Section 500 I.P.C. The Counsel also would submit that none of the exceptions are attracted and the view expressed by the learned Magistrate that exception 5 is attracted also is not correct. Learned Counsel would conclude, at any rate, that when these reckless allegations are not all necessary for the civil proceedings, such allegations if permitted to be made, definitely would cause lot of prejudice to the appellant/complainant.